I have been struggling with these type of question types for a while now, I feel like I am missing something that gives me that Aha! moment. I am having trouble figuring out how to predict the assumption, or at least come close to a prediction. I am having to go to the answer choices before I make a prediction causing me to fall prey to the traps set. What are ways that I can improve on such question types? What should I be looking for so that I am not constantly falling for the traps and the confusing wording.

I would like to add that I have not drilled the question types yet. Do you think it is just a matter of drilling these question types to get better? I already bought the Cambridge question specific drill packets to practice, I just feel that I am not 100% on understanding the strategy for this question type.

Here's my advice (and if you're ever wondering why the answer to any question is the right answer, check out my continually updating, free explanations for (what will soon be) every question right here):

Necessary Assumption Questions

The necessary assumption is a piece of evidence that the argument needs but does not have. The right answer has to be something that fills in a blank within the argument - some place in which the arguer didn't provide you with the evidence, but instead just assumed that the evidence was true.

To identify that place, look for shifts in language: Is there some place in the argument where the author changes the subject? If the author provides evidence about one thing, and a conclusion about something else, that author has assumed there's a connection between those two things. That shift in language gives evidence of the shift in logic.

The right answer is necessary. That means that if you take it away, the argument will die, right? When you think you've found the right answer, ask yourself this question: "If this answer choice weren't true, would the conclusion still make sense?" If the conclusion can live without the answer choice, it's not the right answer! If the right answer isn't true, then the conclusion of the argument will become stupid. This is because the conclusion depended on the truth of the right answer.

Sufficient Assumption Questions

These questions demand of you that you provide an answer that, if true, would be sufficient to prove that the argument's conclusion is true. And proof? That means that it's impossible for that conclusion to be false.

That's a really big job. How do you do that?

I mean, how do you prove, in a sentence, that some claim is true? It would take some heavy-duty information to do that, right?

So, expect that the right answer to a Sufficient Assumption question will be big. Expect it to employ what I call Load-Bearing language (the kind of language that can bear the burden of proof).

Words like all and always and never and every and only. Also superlatives - words like best and first and smartest and weakest and surest.

When choosing between two answer choices for a Sufficient Assumption question, choose the more-aggressively worded choice.

Dave Hall wrote:Here's my advice (and if you're ever wondering why the answer to any question is the right answer, check out my continually updating, free explanations for (what will soon be) every question right here):

Necessary Assumption Questions

The necessary assumption is a piece of evidence that the argument needs but does not have. The right answer has to be something that fills in a blank within the argument - some place in which the arguer didn't provide you with the evidence, but instead just assumed that the evidence was true.

To identify that place, look for shifts in language: Is there some place in the argument where the author changes the subject? If the author provides evidence about one thing, and a conclusion about something else, that author has assumed there's a connection between those two things. That shift in language gives evidence of the shift in logic.

The right answer is necessary. That means that if you take it away, the argument will die, right? When you think you've found the right answer, ask yourself this question: "If this answer choice weren't true, would the conclusion still make sense?" If the conclusion can live without the answer choice, it's not the right answer! If the right answer isn't true, then the conclusion of the argument will become stupid. This is because the conclusion depended on the truth of the right answer.

Sufficient Assumption Questions

These questions demand of you that you provide an answer that, if true, would be sufficient to prove that the argument's conclusion is true. And proof? That means that it's impossible for that conclusion to be false.

That's a really big job. How do you do that?

I mean, how do you prove, in a sentence, that some claim is true? It would take some heavy-duty information to do that, right?

So, expect that the right answer to a Sufficient Assumption question will be big. Expect it to employ what I call Load-Bearing language (the kind of language that can bear the burden of proof).

Words like all and always and never and every and only. Also superlatives - words like best and first and smartest and weakest and surest.

When choosing between two answer choices for a Sufficient Assumption question, choose the more-aggressively worded choice.

It seems to me like I just need to practice the question instead of complain about how I do not understand. I knew every detail of what you just said. Things like term shifts, negating the answer choices, and looking out for modifiers, I feel like I know this like the back of my hand. Also the link you sent me is awesome I actually had this as a bookmarked site on my computer.

Reasonable Man is right. These are all essentially the same question group. Sounds like you haven't gone through the Manhattan LR book though yet, OP. HIGHLY recommend it. Worth the investment, and then some. Oh, and good luck! That ah ha moment is only some drilling away

jetsfan1 wrote:Reasonable Man is right. These are all essentially the same question group. Sounds like you haven't gone through the Manhattan LR book though yet, OP. HIGHLY recommend it. Worth the investment, and then some. Oh, and good luck! That ah ha moment is only some drilling away

Thank you guys for all your advice I really appreciate the support. You are right jetsfan haha, I actually only had the book for about two weeks, and I am only on page 243. I am actually planning to go through the full book. I also bought the lsat trainer and plan on going through that as well.

jetsfan1 wrote:Reasonable Man is right. These are all essentially the same question group. Sounds like you haven't gone through the Manhattan LR book though yet, OP. HIGHLY recommend it. Worth the investment, and then some. Oh, and good luck! That ah ha moment is only some drilling away

I didn't read this book lol, and do not parrot other company's info without citing. I just drove a taxi when I prepped, and a lot of time to review random q's when in traffic + unless you drive like a looney tune, cops don't pull over cabbies. moreover, passengers blindly assume you're a good driver, and after a while you have the ability to recognize if you're gonna hit another car or if a light's red based off the shadow cast off your preptest. i once finished a game without looking at the road. you just notice patterns when you do something for a while.

AReasonableMan wrote:...and after a while you have the ability to recognize if you're gonna hit another car or if a light's red based off the shadow cast off your preptest.

Thank you for giving us what may be the single greatest sentence ever written about LSAT prep.

So awesome.

lol most of the other drivers ran side businesses while driving. granted they were much better drivers than me, but they were mostly pretty smart and knew how to game the system. many were on welfare and stuff on the side. my estimate is that at a given time maybe 20-25% of taxi drivers in the tri-state area are focused on the road. i'm not talking bad about my coworkers. they were awesome. i'm just saying doing logic games while driving isn't as outlandish as it probably sounds. you just have to be humble about it. if someone knows the LSAT and asks how you're scoring, they either took the LSAT or have a relative taking it. You're possibly talking yourself out a tip if you say anything above a 160. The correct answer is always, "It's a struggle but I'm doing my best." Evoking an image of Rudy always gets the better tip.

jetsfan1 wrote:Reasonable Man is right. These are all essentially the same question group. Sounds like you haven't gone through the Manhattan LR book though yet, OP. HIGHLY recommend it. Worth the investment, and then some. Oh, and good luck! That ah ha moment is only some drilling away

I didn't read this book lol, and do not parrot other company's info without citing. I just drove a taxi when I prepped, and a lot of time to review random q's when in traffic + unless you drive like a looney tune, cops don't pull over cabbies. moreover, passengers blindly assume you're a good driver, and after a while you have the ability to recognize if you're gonna hit another car or if a light's red based off the shadow cast off your preptest. i once finished a game without looking at the road. you just notice patterns when you do something for a while.

? Would love to see where I "parroted" Manhattan's techniques, but apparently my posts are now deleted so I can't. The Seahawks example was drawn from a question I'd drilled a couple of days prior and had nothing to do with Manhattan. The only reason Manhattan came up was because you mentioned assumption/flaw/strengthen/weaken as the same question type, and I remember Manhattan doing that too. Was the first time I had thought of it that way, and the only reason it came up was because you brought it up...

jetsfan1 wrote:Reasonable Man is right. These are all essentially the same question group. Sounds like you haven't gone through the Manhattan LR book though yet, OP. HIGHLY recommend it. Worth the investment, and then some. Oh, and good luck! That ah ha moment is only some drilling away

I didn't read this book lol, and do not parrot other company's info without citing. I just drove a taxi when I prepped, and a lot of time to review random q's when in traffic + unless you drive like a looney tune, cops don't pull over cabbies. moreover, passengers blindly assume you're a good driver, and after a while you have the ability to recognize if you're gonna hit another car or if a light's red based off the shadow cast off your preptest. i once finished a game without looking at the road. you just notice patterns when you do something for a while.

? Would love to see where I "parroted" Manhattan's techniques, but apparently my posts are now deleted so I can't. The Seahawks example was drawn from a question I'd drilled a couple of days prior and had nothing to do with Manhattan. The only reason Manhattan came up was because you mentioned assumption/flaw/strengthen/weaken as the same question type, and I remember Manhattan doing that too. Was the first time I had thought of it that way, and the only reason it came up was because you brought it up...

oh you never did, and i honestly wouldn't know if you did. i've been tutoring and outsourcing tutors since 2010, and don't wanna get sued. just the fact these questions are all related is a fundamental fact, and not a creative concept. all i know about manhattan is they pay their tutors very well. i was distancing myself from manhattan, and was not speaking about you. i didn't mean to get your posts deleted, had no input in that, but am sorry. please accept my apology. go hawks.

jetsfan1 wrote:Reasonable Man is right. These are all essentially the same question group. Sounds like you haven't gone through the Manhattan LR book though yet, OP. HIGHLY recommend it. Worth the investment, and then some. Oh, and good luck! That ah ha moment is only some drilling away

I didn't read this book lol, and do not parrot other company's info without citing. I just drove a taxi when I prepped, and a lot of time to review random q's when in traffic + unless you drive like a looney tune, cops don't pull over cabbies. moreover, passengers blindly assume you're a good driver, and after a while you have the ability to recognize if you're gonna hit another car or if a light's red based off the shadow cast off your preptest. i once finished a game without looking at the road. you just notice patterns when you do something for a while.

? Would love to see where I "parroted" Manhattan's techniques, but apparently my posts are now deleted so I can't. The Seahawks example was drawn from a question I'd drilled a couple of days prior and had nothing to do with Manhattan. The only reason Manhattan came up was because you mentioned assumption/flaw/strengthen/weaken as the same question type, and I remember Manhattan doing that too. Was the first time I had thought of it that way, and the only reason it came up was because you brought it up...

oh you never did, and i honestly wouldn't know if you did. i've been tutoring and outsourcing tutors since 2010, and don't wanna get sued. just the fact these questions are all related is a fundamental fact, and not a creative concept. all i know about manhattan is they pay their tutors very well. i was distancing myself from manhattan, and was not speaking about you. i didn't mean to get your posts deleted, had no input in that, but am sorry. please accept my apology. go hawks.

No worries! Hope OP got what she/he came for. What a shame though last night. As a Jets fan watching Brady win another Super Bowl... Ughhh would rather go to Cooley at sticker.

i'm a jet fan too and hate the patriots, but actually like brady. he was smart enough to get a corporate finance job in college, never beat his wife or did crazy stuff off the field and was a 6th round pick. gotta respect people who thrive in the face of adversity without being sociopathic, but i like russell wilson a lot more.